Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male menstruation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Male menstruation

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Someone prodded it for queried notability, but best discuss it properly here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep There are a lot of hits on Google Scholar including sources addressing male mensuration as an antisemetic conspiracy theory (twice!), its usage as a ritual in certain native cultures, and how it shows up in history and anthropology. Seems to have enough scholarly coverage to pass GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete/Merge to schistosomiasis There's definitely some coverage among academic reliable sources of an antisemitic "male menstruation" myth 1 2 3 4. But, the current topic of the article doesn't really appear to be about that (it contains one sentence, under a section titled "In intersex or trans men", and the page currently reads like a pseudo-disambiguation page. The page contains one source regarding the use of the term "male menstruation" to refer to schistosomiasis, though the content probably would be better included in the disease's article, as the two aren't substantially different topics. The current state of the page is WP:TNT-worthy; there is currently little content dedicated to the focus that appears to have the largest academic use (and no sources are applied in that direction), and even then I'm not sure that "Male Menstruation" would be the proper title (as opposed to "Male Menstruation Myth"). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted, the antisemitic myth angle is well covered in the literature (but not yet anywhere on Wikipedia, as far as I can see). It looks like this article needs a perspective flip: replace the excessive schistosomiasis material with a one-paragraph summary and a main link to schistosomiasis, then expand the other facet with the existing material. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs to be heavily re-worked, but there is enough coverage of this concept to warrant keeping a standalone article. As noted above, there are plenty of academic sources about the myth of male menstruation in ancient Judaism. I found an additional article about the concept of male menstruation in the work of Sigmund Freud. I also found an article about "male rituals of pseudo-procreation" among Aboriginal Australians that entail "the men 'menstruating' by making their noses bleed, cutting their arms, subincising their penises, inducing diarrhoea (as a substitute for menstrual blood) or in other ways". This seems to be a specific case study about the general anthropological concept of male menstruation that is described in two of the sources found by . Although it would be quite difficult to write an encyclopedic article that cohesively ties all of these angles together, that alone is not a reason to delete. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly a scholar g-search yields results, but I think this article is leaning towards Original Research. Since the term "male mensturation" might refer to various things, joining them together in an article would constitude OR. Maybe, we could merge various parts of the article to various other articles and turn this page into a DAP.Cinadon36 09:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.